Herndon officials have acknowledged that the center would likely provide help to day laborers who are in the country illegally, but said they are not equipped to sort out individuals' immigration status, which can at times be murky.Clearly, buck passers like O'Reilly need to be recalled.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that no matter the problem, facilitating the hiring of illegal immigrants is not an acceptable solution.
"The Town Council understands it would be helping illegal aliens" by establishing a day laborer site, Fitton said Thursday during a news conference at the group's Washington headquarters. "It has essentially admitted it in some proceedings."
Herndon Mayor Michael O'Reilly said in a statement Thursday that Judicial Watch is misdirecting its concerns over federal immigration policy at the town.
"Clearly the national immigration issue needs to be handled by Congress and the executive branch and not by small local governments such as Herndon," O'Reilly said...
Immigration2005b · Fri, 09/02/2005 - 01:29 · · Importance: 1
Independent, in-depth coverage of immigration, politics, and media bias since 2002. Also: multiculturalism, Los Angeles, California, privacy, and occasionally celebrities and wacky humor...
If you can't find what you're looking for, see the About page or use the navigation features to the right.
Atom feed · RSS 2.0 feed · RSS 0.91 feed · WML
Immigration 2008a · Immigration 2007b · Immigration 2007a · Immigration · Immigration (6/05 to 12/05) · Immigration (1/05 to 6/05) · Immigration (8/04 to 12/04) · Immigration (before 8/04) · Immigration & Terrorism · Immigration & Driver's Licenses · Immigration & Consuls · Immigration & Media Bias · Immigration & Europe · North American Union
Blogging Across America
MultiCulti Madness ·
General Politics ·
Privacy ·
Miscellaneous ·
The "Peace" Movement
Los Angeles ·
California ·
Outdoors and sports ·
Celebrities ·
Wackiness ·
Inside Blogging
Iraq ·
Beltway Sniper ·
Terrorism & Extremism ·
The Saudis ·
Warblogging ·
War On Drugs
Comments
"How many"
Probably none of them.
Anyone who's seen what it's like when "day laborers" congregate, whether in such a proposed center or not, knows what a crappy situation it always turns into -- these guys are not Boy Scouts.
And it's a pretty sure bet that if it's located in a residential area, similar problems that caused it to be approved in the first place -- a lot of men loitering and being loud, littering, drinking, even urinating in public -- will recur. And property values will sink, which is a slap in the face to nearby homeowners, who are often not so well off people whose net worth is, in many cases, more or less any equity they have in their homes. As an extra added bonus, via their taxes they get to pay for this neighborhood degradation.
In any case, the government normally doesn't help anyone find a job (they never do me, anyway), and in my view should not; and this ought to go double for illegal immigrants -- don't forget it is illegal to employ them.
Posted by: eh at Sep 2, 2005 7:04 AM
Wendell Berry, an advocate for keeping things as local as possible, has written extensively on communities. In "Home Economics", he describes a meeting which was held in Madison, Indiana in which a group of "experts" tried to reassure a group of local folks that the nuclear power plant then being proposed was perfectly safe, much needed, etc. The local folks were, of course, gravely concerned. The "experts" seemed to be gaining the upper hand when a local woman rose and asked how many of the 15-20 "experts" lived within the 50-mile danger zone should a catastrophe, which was considered unlikely, happen. As Berry says: "Not one. Not a single one of those well-paid, well-educated, successful, important men would need to worry about his family or his property in the event of a catastrophic mistake....."
Now my question is: How many of the "well-paid, well-educated, successful, important experts" who favored setting up the Herndon day laborer site - including the supporting politicians - live in the neighborhood where it is being situated - the neighborhood which would be affected should some "catastrophic mistake" occur? It has been my sad observation that just as a lot of folks on the right are willing to fight to the last drop of other people's blood, a lot of folks on the left are willing to do infinite good as long as the consequences of their doing good does not adversely affect them, their families, and their neighborhoods directly. I call them "saints elsewhere" - they want to be seen as saints but be elsewhere when the bad consequences of their "good works" happen. I've also observed that the folks whose families and neighborhoods are affected by these good works tend not to have much clout.
Posted by: D Flinchum at Sep 2, 2005 6:30 AM
I guess the anti-immigration crowd isn't tired of losing in court yet.
Posted by: Ralph at Sep 2, 2005 4:22 AM